THE  ROBERT   H    COWAN  COLLECTION 


I'KKSKNTKI.    TO    Till: 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CflLJFO 


mm 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF 


Tne 


of 


In  Inference  to  the  Histories 


OF 


HUBERT    HOWE    BANCROFT 


J~     ^» 
^^^1 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 

STERETT  PRINTING  COMPANY 

FEBRUARY,  1894 


MISREPRESENTATIONS 


OF 


EflRLY  CfliilFOWIfl  HISTORY 

COIKIESIBCTDEID 


Proceedings  of  THK   SOCIETY   OF  CALIFORNIA  PIONEERS  in 

regard   to   certain  misrepresentations  of  men  and 

events  in  early  California  history  made 

in  the  works  of 

HUBERT  HOWE  BANCROFT 

AND  COMMONLY  KNOWN  AS 
BANCROFT'S    HISTORIES 


HALL  OF 

THE  SOCIETY  Op  CflLIFORfUfl  PIONEERS 

SAN  FRANCISCO 
FEBRUARY,  1894 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  Society  of  California  Pioneers  is  composed  of  men  who 
came  to  California  prior  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1850,  and 
their  male  descendants. 

The  proceedings  hereinafter  recited  have  been  taken  there 
fore,  after  due  and  careful  deliberation,  by  men,  who  are 
personally  familiar  with  the  true  facts  of  early  California  his 
tory,  and  who  have  bsen  actuated  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  them 
selves  and  to  posterity  in  correcting  certain  gross  misrepresen 
tations  in  regard  to  the  men  and  events  of  that  early  period. 

These  misrepresentations  have  appeared  from  time  to  time 
in  the  books  commonly  known  as  "  Bancroft's  Histories,"  and 
have  heretofore  passed  unchallenged  and  found  common  public 
acceptance  as  authority  for  reviewers,  and  others  who  have 
written  upon  the  subject. 

The  time  has  at  last  arrived  when,  in  the  judgment  of  the 
now  old  men  who  yet  compose  the  majority  of  members  of  this 
Society,  the  gross  mis-statements  in  regard  to  men  and  events 
which  these  books  contain  should  be  refuted,  by  the  publica 
tion  of  the  testimony  of  living  witnesses,  so  that  that  testimony 
may  go  upon  record  and  be  perpetuated,  and  the  real  facts  and 
truth  of  history  be  vindicated. 

In  all  its  proceedings  upon  this  question  this  Society  has 
vainly  sought  to  find  a  just  motive  on  the  part  of  the  so-called 
"  Historian  "  Bancroft  for  the  astonishing  mis-statements 
which  he  has  given  in  his  works.  No  excuse,  no  circumstance 
of  palliation  has  so  far  been  offered  by  him  in  the  matter. 

This  Society  can  do  no  more,  therefore,  than  to  refer  the 
whole  subject  to  the  deliberative  judgment  of  a  discriminating 
public,  in  the  belief  that  the  common  verdict  of  that  public  as 
well  as  that  of  posterity  will  be  that  such  so-called  "  history  " 
as  that  herein  considered  will  forever  be  held  to  be  unworthy 
of  credence,  and  will  deserve  and  find  no  place  in  the  public 
or  private  libraries  of  the  world. 


OF 


SAN  FRANCISCO,  NOVEMBER        1893. 


In  the  matter  of  the  SOCIETY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
PIONEEES, 


YS. 


HUBERT  HOWE  BANCROFT,  an  Honorary  Mem 
ber  of  said  Society. 


On  the  second  day  of  October,  1893,  at  a  regular  monthly 
meeting  of  the  Society  of  California  Pioneers,  a  resolution 
was  introduced  by  Dr.  Washington  Ayer,  of  which  the  follow 
ing  is  a  copy,  viz. : 

"  WHEREAS,  statements  have  been  made  by  an  honorary  mem 
ber  of  this  Society  in  a  quasi-history  published  by  one  Hubert 
Howe  Bancroft,  which  are  at  variance  with  historical  records, 
and  reflect  upon  the  honor,  dignity  and  integrity  of  the 
California  Pioneers,  and 

"  WHEREAS,  All  such  statements  have  no  foundation  of  truth, 
and  are  unworthy  the  labors  of  an  upright  historian,  and  only 
becoming  to  one,  who  in  our  judgment  strayed  far  from  the 


5 

domain  of  an  honest  writer,  with  the  purpose  in  view  to  mislead 
the  reader  and  wrong  the  founders  of  a  new  State  upon  the 
extreme  western  boundary  of  our  country,  and  by  such  state 
ments  did  wantonly  and  maliciously  wrong  the  old  Argonauts; 
therefore, 

"Resolved,  That  the  name  of  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft  be  stric 
ken  from  the  list  of  Honorary  Members  of  this  Society,  and 
that  the  Secretary  be  requested  to  send  him  a  copy  of  this 
preamble  and  resolution." 

After  some  debate  the  foregoing  resolution  was  adopted  and 
Dr.  Wm.  S.  Simpson  gave  notice  that  at  the  next  regular 
monthly  meeting  of  the  Society  he  would  move  for  a  recon 
sideration  of  the  vote  upon  the  adoption  of  such  resolution. 

At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  Society,  held  on  the 
6th  day  of  November,  1893,  Dr.  Simpson,  in  accordance  with 
the  notice  so  given,  moved  that  the  vote  upon  the  before 
recited  resolution  be  reconsidered,  which  motion,  after  debate, 
was  adopted. 

The  resolution  was  then  referred  to  a  special  committee 
consisting  of  Dr.  Wm.  S.  Simpson,  A.  S.  Hall,  E.  Thompson 
and  S.  W.  Holladay,  with  instructions  to  notify  Mr.  Bancroft 
of  the  action  that  has  been  taken  by  the  Society,  and  to 
request  him  to  appear  before  such  committee — if  he  desired  to 
do  so — and  show  cause  why  his  name  should  not  be  struck 
from  the  roll  of  Honorary  Membership,  as  proposed  in  the 
resolution  under  consideration. 

Herewith  are  presented  the  specific  charges  against  Hubert 
Howe  Bancroft,  alluded  to  in  the  before  recited  resolution,  and 
which  constitute  the  reasons  why  it  is  sought  to  strike  the 
•name  of  said  Bancroft  from  the  roll  of  Honorary  Membership 
of  said  Society. 


6 

First. — Because  of  the  facts  stated  in  the  following  preamble 
and  resolutions,  introduced  at  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of 
the  Society  of  California  Pioneers,  on  the  7th  day  of  August, 
1893,  by  W.  B.  Farwell  and  unanimously  adopted  at  the  next 
regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  Society,  held  on  the  4th  day  of 
September,  1893. 

"  WHEREAS,  In  the  organization  and  founding  of  the  Society 
of  California  Pioneers,  one  of  its  declared  and  most  important 
purposes  was  set  forth  in  its  constitution  as  follows,  viz. :  *  To 
collect  and  preserve  information  connected  with  the  early 
settlement  and  subsequent  history  of  the  country,  and  also,  in 
,all  appropriate  matters  to  advance  the  interests  and  perpetuate 
the  memory  of  those  whose  sagacity,  energy  and  enterprise 
induced  them  to  settle  in  the  wilderness  and  become  the 
founders  of  a  new  State, '  and 

"WHEREAS,  In  pursuance  of  these  declared  purposes,  we,  who 
are  yet  living  witnesses  of  the  more  prominent  events  of  early 
•California  history,  and  who  were  contemporaries  of  the  men 
whose  names  are  most  prominent  as  actors  and  participants  in 
these  events,  deem  it  our  duty  not  only  to  '  collect  and  pre 
serve  information  in  regard  to  the  acqusition  and  settlement  of 
California,'  but  also  to  correct  misstatements  and  misrepresen 
tations  of  so-called  historians  who  have  written  upon  the  sub 
ject,  whenever  and  wherever  they  may  be  found,  and 

"  WHEREAS,  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft,  in  his  so-called  '  History 
of  California, '  has,  within  the  personal  knowledge  and  recol 
lection  of  many  of  the  old  Pioneers  here  present,  distorted  the 

facts  and  truths  of  such  history,  and  maligned  the  memory  of 
many  of  the  men  most  conspicuous  as  participants  in  these 
early  events,  more  of  which  misrepresentations  as  illustrative 
of  the  purposes  of  these  resolutions  are  summarized  as  follows, 
viz: 


"  First.  Fremont  is  designated  a  '  filibuster,*  whose  almost 
every  act  in  California  was  a  wrong  from  beginning  to  end. 
He  says  (See  Vol.  3  of  his  *  History  of  California/  pages  747 
and  749) :  '  When  the  authorities  very  properly  ordered  him  to 
leave  California,  he  fortified  a  position  on  Gavilan  Peak  and 
raised  the  U.  S.  flag.  This  was  foolish  bravado,  as  he  realized 
after  a  day  or  two  of  reflection  in  connection  with  Consul 
Larkin's  advice  and  the  sight  of  military  preparations  at  San 
Juan,  so  he  ran  away  in  the  night. ' 

"And  again,  speaking  of  the  Bear  Flag  revolt,  he  says, 
'  That  most  indefensible  rising  of  the  settlers  which  interrupted 
negotiations  for  a  pacific  change  of  flag,  would  not  have 
occurred  but  for  Fremont's  promise  of  active  support  when 
needed;  therefore,  he  must  be  held  responsible  not  only  for 
the  bloodshed  and  bitterness  of  feeling  that  attended  the  con 
flict  of  1846-7,  but  for  the  much  more  disastrous  state  of  affairs 
which  but  for  sheer  good  luck  must  have  resulted.' 

"And  again:  'At  Monterey  though  Commodore  Sloat  would 
not  adopt  his  views,  Fremont  found  in  Stockton  a  filibuster 
after  his  own  heart,  willing  to  incorporate  the  Gavilan  episode 
and^the  Bear  Flag  revolt  in  the  sacred  cause  of  the  United 
States/ 

"  And  again,  speaking  of  the  controversy  which  subsequent 
ly  arose  between  Stockton  and  Kearney,  in  which  Fremont 
was  loyal  to  Stockton  as  he  was  in  duty  bound  to  be,  Bancroft 
sneeringly  remarks :  '  Though  technically  disobeying  military 
orders,  Fremont  could  not  with  the  honor  that  should  prevail 
among  filibusters  as  well  as  thieves,  abandon  his  chief,'  etc. 
And  he  closes  his  biographical  sketch  in  these  words:  f  Fre 
mont  did  more  than  any  other  to  prevent  or  retard  the  conquest 
of  California.  He  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  adventurer  of  mar 
velous  good  fortune,  for  a  man  of  moderate  abilities  to  be 
made  conspicuous  before  the  world  or  to  enjoy  opportunities 
that  cannot  be  utilized. ' 


8 
p 

"  These  are  but  a  few  of  the  many  false  and  malicious  state 
ments  made  by  Bancroft  in  regard  to  Fremont,  and  which  we 
have  thus  specifically  quoted  with  proper  reference  to  the 
volume  and  pages  where  they  may  be  found.  Through  his 
history  Fremont  is  constantly  misrepresented,  and  the  part 
that  he  played  in  the  acquisition  of  California  is  constantly 
belittled  and  distorted  to  suit  a  seemingly  vengeful  malice 
existing  in  the  mind  of  the  historian,  the  cause  of  which  it  is 
not  our  purpose  or  duty  to  inquire  into. 

"  Second.  Of  Commodore  Stockton  he  says  (See  page  735, 
Yol.  5  of  his  *  History  of  California,'):  'His  whole  policy  of 
conquest  which  was  to  produce  such  unhappy  results,  his 
blustering  tirade  against  imaginary  evils,  his  willingness  to 
identify  a  criminal  revolt  of  vagabond  settlers, '  (referring  to 
the  men  of  the  Bear  Flag  party,  with  a  legitimate  military 
occupation,  etc.,)  *  his  whole  reputation  as  conqueror  of  Cali 
fornia,  is  as  unmerited  as  that  of  the  Pathfinder.' 

"Third.  'The  acts  of  the  Bear  Flag  party,'  as  above 
referred  to,  in  which  during  its  operations,  such  men  as  John 
Bidwell,  Samuel  J.  Henley,  Pearson  B.  Bedding,  Bobert 
Semple,  and  other  equally  well-known  early  Calif ornians  were 
participants,  'were,'  says  he,  '  a  criminal  revolt  of  vagabond 
settlers."  And  he  designates  the  man  who  was  placed  first  in 
command  of  the  Bear  Flag  party,  Ezekiel  Merritt,  whom 
Fremont  says  was  '  a  rugged  man,  fearless  and  simple,  taking 
delight  in  incurring  risks,  but  tractable,  and  not  given  to 
asking  questions  when  there  was  something  he  was  required  to 
do,'  as  a  'coarse-grained,  loud-mouthed,  whisky-drinking, 
quarrelsome  fellow,  well  adapted  to  the  use  that  was  made  of 
him  in  promoting  the  filibuster  schemes.'  (See  page  736  of 
Vol.  4  of  Bancroft's  History  of  California.) 

"Fourth.  More  criminally  wicked  and  more  cruel  than  all, 
is  his  denunciation  of  that  gentle  and  generous-hearted  man, 


9 


• 


the  late  General  John  A.  Sutter,  (see  Vol.  5,  pages  738  to  740, 
for  what  follows),  and  after  stating  that  he  had  obtained  from 
him  personally  at  his  home  in  Latiz,  Penn.,  *  the  story  of  his 
wrongs, '  and  which  was  without  doubfc  truthfully  told,  he  turns 
upon  him  with  wolf -like  ferocity  and  reads  him  thus :  '  He  was 
a  German-Swiss  trader,  compelled  by  bankruptcy  to  become 
an  adventurer  in  America.  None  of  the  pioneers  have  received 
so  much  praise  from  so  many  sources,  few  have  deserved  so 
little.  He  was  but  an  adventurer  from  the  first,  entitled  to  no 
admiration  or  sympathy.  His  career  in  New  Mexico  was  at 
the  best  discreditable.  He  came  to  California  in  the  false 
character  of  a  captain  in  the  French  Army.  Of  principle  or 
honor,  of  respect  for  the  rights  of  others,  we  find  but  slight 
trace  in  him.  There  was  no  side  of  any  controversy  he  would 
not  adopt  at  the  call  of  interest.  Nationality,  religion,  friend 
ship,  obligation,  consistency  counted  for  little  or  nothing. 
There  were  no  classes  of  his  associates,  hardly  an  individual, 
with  whom  he  did  not  quarrel  or  whom  in  his  anger  he  did  not 
roundly  abuse.  His  only  capital  was  money  borrowed  on  the 
way  to  California,  or  property  obtained  on  credit  from  Cali- 
fornians  and  Bussians  after  his  arrival,  all  on  pretenses  more 
or  less  false.  He  never  hesitated  to  assume  any  obligation 
for  the  future,  without  regard  to  his  ability  to  meet  it.  He 
rarely  if  ever  paid  a  debt  when  due.' 

"  Butter's  Fort  he  designates  as  '  an  isolated  rendezvous  for 
the  hostile  and  uncontrollable  elements  of  a  vagabond  popula 
tion  in  the  far  interior ' — referring  here,  of  course,  mainly  to  the 
American  settlers  in  the  Sacramento  Valley.  And  again: 
'Though  Sutter's  establishment  did  something  to  promote  the 
influx  of  American  settlers,  it  was  in  no  sense  beneficial  to  the 
interests  of  the  United  States,  merely  fomenting  filibusterism 
with  all  it's  unhappy  results. ' 

"  That  Sutter  treated  immigrants  '  more  kindly  than  a  dozen 
others,'  and  that  he  did  so  ( at  a  personal  sacrifice,'  is  not  true. 


10 

Neither  is  it  true  '  that  Sutter  in  1845-6  was  friendly  to  the 
United  States,  or  to  the  immigrants  as  Americans. '    And 

""WHEREAS,  Without  quoting  further  from  this  monstrous 
series  of  libels  upon  the  memories  of  departed  illustrious 
Pioneers  and  monstrous  perversion  of  the  facts  of  history,  it  is 
hereby 

"  Resolved,  That  Bancroft's  denunciation  of  Fremont,  Stock 
ton  and  Sutter.  and  his  designation  of  the  men  of  the  Bear 
Flag  party  as  vagabond  settlers,  are  plainly  the  vaporings  of  a 
mind  distorted  by  prejudice,  or  envenomed  by  malice,  and 
attach  a  greater  degree  of  disgrace  to  their  author  than  to  the 
honored  names  and  memories  of  the  men  whom  he  thus 
maliciously  maligns. 

"Resolved,  That  upon  the  principle  pf  'false  in  one  thing, 
false  in  all,'  Bancroft's  ' History  of  California,'  so-called,  is,  in 
the  opinion  of  this  Society,  unworthy  of  credence  as  authority, 
or  as  a  source  of  correct  information  for  present  or  future 
generations,  and  merits  the  just  condemnation  of  every  fair- 
minded  man,  whose  early  personal  experiences  enable  him  to 
form  a  true  estimate  of  its  value. " 

Second. — Because  of  the  malicious  misrepresentations  of  the 
characters  of  some  of  the  men  who  were  among  the  earlier 
pioneers  of  California,  and  who  were  also  among  the  founders, 
and  respected  members  of  this  Society  up  to  the  day  of  their 
death;  as  instance  the  following: 

Of  Andrew  J.  Gray  son — a  man  renowned  in  the  scientific 
world  as  an  ornithologist,  whose  contributions  to  that  branch 
of  scientific  knowledge  are  commonly  acknowledged  as  hardly 
inferior  in  value  and  interest  to  those  of  Audubon.  This  man, 
Mr.  Bancroft  in  his  "Pioneer  Index  and  Eegister"  (Yol.  3, 
page  764)  alludes  to  (after  saying  that  "he  was  active  in 
raising  men  for  the  California  Batallion,  in  which  he  ranked 


11 

as  lieutenant,")  as  "  a  gambler  and  an  associate  of  Lippineott> 
McDougal  and  other  like  characters,"  which  statement,  in  so- 
far  as  it  accuses  Grayson  of  being  a  gambler,  is  wickedly  and 
cruelly  false,  and  kwown  to  be  so  by  many  pioneers  now  living, 
who  were  honored  by  being  counted  among  his  personal  friends. 

Of  Benjamin  S.  Lippincott,  alluded  to  in  his  remarks  upon 
Grayson,  (seeYol.  4,  "History  of  California,"  page  714,)  he 
says:  "  He  was  a  gambler  by  profession  and  one  of  the  boys;"- 
another  equally  false  and  malicious  mis-statement,  and  known 
to  be  so  by  many  pioneers  still  living,  who  can  testify  to  that 
fact.  Even  Bancroft  himself,  with  strange  inconsistency,  in 
the  same  notice  of  Lippincott,  says:  "He  was  active  in  raising 
recruits  for  the  war,  and  served  as  Lieutenant  of  Company  H., 
California  Batallion,  also  acting  as  quarter-master."  He  says 
also :  "  He  was  owner  of  town  lots,  a  candidate  for  the  council, 
a  Member  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  '49,  representing 
San  Joaquin  county  in  the  first  Legislature,  and  Calaveras  in 
'55  and  '61." 

Of  George  McDougal,  also  alluded  to  in  his  notice  of  Gray- 
son,  he  says  (See  Yol.  4,  page  723):  "  He  lived  nt  Santa  Cruz 
and  Gilroy;  served  as  a  kind  of  unattached  volunteer  in  the 
California  Batallion  in  '46  and  '47;  was  a  broker,  that  is  a 
gambler,  at  San  Francisco  in  '47  and  '48,  becoming  the  owner 
of  many  town  lots  in  partnership  with  Lippincott,"  etc. 

These  men,  as  has  been  said,  were  among  the  early  pioneers 
of  California,  and  were  also  among  the  founders  of  this 
Society.  Clearly,  after  the  misrepresentations  and  abuse 
heaped  upon  the  memories  of  Fremont,  Stockton,  Sutter,  the 
men  of  the  Bear  Flag  party,  and  all  who  were  active  in  bring 
ing  about  the  acquisition  of  California  as  an  American  posses 
sion,  it  is  not  difficult  to  find  the  motive  for  this  gross 
aspersion  upon  their  memories,  when  we  consider  that  each 


12 

/ 

one  of  them  was  an  active  participant  in  that  patriotic  work 

which  was  so  distasteful  to  Mr.  Bancroft. 

Third. — Because  of  willful  and  malignant  misrepresenta,- 
tions  of  various  other  Americans,  who  were  among  the  early 
settlers  in  California,  of  the  part  which  they  played  in  the 
events  that  preceded,  and  transpired  during  the  conquest  of 
the  country,  as  instanced  in  the  following  statement  of  facts : 

In  1840,  a  hundred  or  more  American  and  other  foreign 
residents  were  arrested  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  taken  to 
Monterey  under  the  accusation  of  having  plotted  against  the 
government.  Among  them*  were  such  men  as  Dr.  Marsh,  who 
lived  upon  the  San  Joaquin  river;  Livermore,  from  whom 
Livermore's  pass  and  valley  were  named,  and  others  of  like 
prominence.  They  were  imprisoned,  maltreated,  subjected  to 
great  hardships  and  suffering,  and  some  fifty  or  more  were 
finally  expatriated  and  sent  to  Mexico,  but  were  subsequently 
released  and  sent  back  by  the  Mexican  authorities,  with  a 
money  indemnity  for  the  wrong  which  had  been  put  upon  them. 

T.  J.  Farnham,  an  American,  who  chanced  to  be  at  Mon 
terey  while  these  men  were  imprisoned  there,  in  his  book 
entitled  "Life,  Adventures  and  Travels  in  California,"  (pub 
lished  in  1852)  gives  a  thrilling  account  of  the  matter,  in  which 
he  says  (see  page  59):  "Mr.  Larkin  made  arrangements  with 
the  government  to  day  to  furnish  the  prisoners  with  food  and 
drink.  Their  cells  were  examined  and  found  destitute  of 
floors.  The  ground  was  so  wet  that  the  poor  fellows  sunk  into 
it  several  inches  at  every  step.  On  this  they  stood,  sat  and 
slept.  From  fifty  to  sixty  were  crowded  into  a  room  eighteen 
to  twenty  feet  square.  They  could  not  all  sit  at  once,  even  in 
that  vile  pool,  still  less  lie  down.  The  cells  were  so  low  and 
tight  that  the  only  way  of  getting  air  enough  to  sustain  life 
was  to  divide  themselves  into  platoons,  each  of  which,  in  turn, 
stood  at  the  grate  awhile  to  breathe.  Most  of  them  had  been 
in  prison  seven  or  eight  days,  with  no  food  except  a  trifling 


13 

quantity,  clandestinely  introduce c£by  a  few  daring  count^men 
outside.  When  I  arrived  at  the  prison,  some  of  them  were 
frantic,  others  in  a  stupor  of  exhaustion  and  appeared  to  be 
dying." 

Farnham  then  goes  on  and  gives  a  detailed  narrative  of  the 
events  which  preceded  this  cruelty,  and  as  afterwards  so 
clearly  shown  to  the  Mexican  authorities  that  they  disavowed 
and  disapproved  it.  He  gives  the  names  of  the  prisoners, 
among  whom,  in  addition  to  those  already  named,  were  those 
of  Nathaniel  Spear,  Peter  Storm,  afterwards  a  prominent  Bear 
Flag  man :  Mark  West  and  other  well  known  men  of  that  time, 
and  he  says  (page  70):  "Forty-one  of  the  prisoners,  whose 
names  appear  on  the  concluding  pages  of  the  last  chapter, 
furnished  me  with  written  accounts  of  their  arrest  and  subse 
quent  treatment."  Some  of  which  statements  he  gives  in  full, 
and  which  simply  corroborate  all  that  he  states  concerning  the 
affair. 

It  is  proper  to  state  here,  that  while  all  this  was  done  during 
the  time  and  under  the  direction  of  Alvarado,  who  was  ihen 
governor,  the  most  brutal  treatment  of  the  prisoners  and  their 
subsequent  deportation  to  Mexico  in  chains  was  carried  out  by 
the  same  Don  Jose  Castro,  who,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
ordered  Fremont  out  of  the  country,  and  was  the  leading 
spirit  of  every  movement  against  Americans  prior  to  the  con 
quest  of  California. 

Coming  now  to  Mr.  Bancroft's  treatment  of  this  matter.  In 
Volume  4,  of  his  "History  of  California,"  he  gives  the  story 
of  the  arrest  and  deportation  from  beginning  to  end,  breathing 
a  spirit  of  hostility  to  the  prisoners  and  their  historian  Farn 
ham,  and  an  equally  zealous  endeavor  to  apologize  for  and  to 
explain  away  the  conduct  of  the  Mexican  authorities,  and 
Castro  in  particular. 


14 

Admitting  that  the '  statements  were  made  by  some  of  the 
prisoners  to  Farnham,  as  given  in  the  latter's  book,  and  quoting 
some  of  them  himself,  Bancroft  says  (Vol.  4,  page  15):  "  The 
victims  and  their  friends  have  accused  the  Californians,  not 
only  of  having  exiled  them  without  cause,  but  of  cruelty  at  the 
time  of  arrest,  during  their  confinement,  and  on  the  voyage  to 
San  Bias.  These  charges  are,  I  believe,  exaggerated,  though 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  they  cannot  be  entirelv  disproved. 
In  considering  the  evidence  to  be  offered,  the  reader  should  bear  in 
mind  the  character  of  the  exiles,  as  men  ivhose  word  could  not  be 
trusted,  the  opportunity  to  make  their  stories  agree,  their  interest 
with  a  view  to  indemnity  from  Mexico  in  maintaining  their 
wrongs  and.  exaggerating  them,  and  the  prevailing  spirit  of  every 
thing  Mexican,  which  in  the  following  years  served  as  a  favorable 
medium  for  their  complaints ." 

A  statement  backed  by  not  one  word  of  evidence  to  support 
it,  and  considering  the  wantoness  of  calling  a  body  of  fifty  or 
more  men,  about  all  of  whom  he  could  by  no  possibility  have 
had  adequate  knowledge  to  justify  it,  as  "men  whose  word 
could  not  be  trusted*"  it  is  sufficient  in  itself  to  justify  this 
Society  in  condemning  him  as  an  historian,  and  as  unworthy 
of  association  with  them. 

But  following  out  his  line  of  policy  as  an  historical  writer, 
and  to  show  how  he  proceeds  to  establish  his  propositions  by 
arrogant  and  unscrupulous  dictum,  instead  of  by  presentation 
of  historical  facts,  attention  is  drawn  to  his  statements  about 
Farnham,  who  has  already  been  quoted  as  the  chief  narrator 
of  this  episode  in  the  early  history  of  California.  Of  him, 
Bancroft  says  (Vol.  4,  page  25):  "His  remarks  on  men  and 
events  at  Monterey  are  so  evidently  and  absurdly  false  as  to 
throw  more  than  a  doubt  upon  all  that  he  says."  And  again, 
in  his  biographical  notice  of  him,  (Vol.  3,  page  734)  he  says : 
"His  work  on  California  is  criticised  elsewhere  in  this  work; 
here  it  must  suffice  to  say,  that  in  all  those  parts  resting  on 


15 

his  own  observation,  it  is  worthless  trash,  and  in  all 
relates  to  the  California  people,  a  tissue  of  falsehood."  And 
yet,  nowhere  does  he  attempt  to  impeach  his  statements  except 
by  this  sweeping  dictum  of  his  own  imperious  will,  and  his 
apologetic  efforts  to  present  the  case  in  the  strongest  possible 
pro -Mexican  and  anti-American  spirit. 

Illustrative  of  this  latter  proposition,  it  is  well  to  quote  here 
his  laudatory  praise  of  Don  Jose  Castro,  who,  as  has  been 
shown,  was  always  the  most  active,  influential  and  effective 
enemy  to  Americans  in  California.  Of  him,  he  says  (Vol.  2, 
page  752):  "  With  his  acts  in  the  contest  with  the  settlers  and 
the  United  States  little  fault  can  be  found.  He  did  not  mal 
treat  the  exiles  of  '40,  as  charged  by  Farnham  and  others.  He 
did  not  break  his  pledge  to  Fremont  in  the  spring  of  '46,  nor 
did  he  do  any  of  the  absurd  things  attributed  to  him  in  con 
nection  with  the  Gavilan  affair;  but  his  conduct  was  far  more 
honorable,  dignified  and  consistent  than  that  of  Fremont.  He 
did  not  threaten  to  drive  the  immigrants  back  into  the  snows 
of  the  interior,  but  treated  them  with  uniform  kindness 
In  the  southern  negotiations  of  August,  he  bore  a  much  more 
honorable  part  than  did  Commodore  Stockton,"  and  so  on  ad 
nauseam. 

Of  this  same  Castro,  Commodore  Stockton,  in  his  proclama 
tion  on  taking  command  in  July,  1846,  at  Monterey,  said: 
"  The  present  general  of  the  forces  of  California  is  a  usurper; 
he  has  been  guilty  of  great  offences;  has  impoverished  and 
drained  the  country  of  almost  its  last  dollar,  and  has  deserted 
his  post  now  when  most  needed.  He  has  deluded  and  deceived 
the  inhabitants  of  California  and  they  wish  his  expulsion  from 
the  country.  He  came  into  powor  by  rebellion  and  force,  and 
by  force  he  must  be  expelled." 

Whose  testimony  shall  prevail,  Bancroft,  writing  from  the 
standpoint  of  narrow  prejudice  forty  years  after  the  ev  ents 


1G 

which  he  is  relating,  or  Stockton,  the  active,  able  and  patriotic 
contemporary  of  the  man  whom  he  knew  so  well,  and  with 
whose  every  official  act  he  was  so  thoroughly  familiar? 

One  more  witness  remains  to  be  heard  on  this  arrest  and 
expatriation  of  Americans  in  1840,  which  the  historian  Ban 
croft  has  so  assiduously  endeavored  tj  explain  away  and  gloss 
over. 

Thomas  O.  Larkin,  in  a  communication  to  the  Secretary 
of  State,  of  June  15,  1846,  written  before  he  had  received  the 
news  of  the  hoisting  of  the  Bear  Flag,  and  Fremont's  active 
operations  in  the  north,  said:  "The  undersigned  improves 
the  opportunity  of  observing  that  there  cannot  be  brought  for 
ward  by  the  President  against  Mexico,  any  claim  or  demand 
so  strong  and  so  impetuous  as  the  unjust  and  cruel  arrest, 
imprisonment  and  shipment  in  irons  of  so  many  Americans 
from  this  port  in  April,  1840.  Californians  in  California  com 
mitted  this  most  outrageous  act,  and  they  and  their  territory 
shoald  bs  held  responsible  for  the  deed." 

Fourth. — Because  of  the  following  facts  which  speak  for 
themselves.  In  his  "History  of  Oregon,"  volume  2,  (first 
edition)  page  97,  in  relating  the  story  of  the  trial  of  certain 
Cay  use  Indians  for  murder  before  Judge  O.  C.  Pratt,  a  former 
member  of  this  Society,  now  deceased,  he  says:  The  solemnity 
and  quiet  of  religious  services  characterized  the  trial,  at  which 
between  two  or  three  hundred  persons  were  present.  At  its 
close,  when  the  jury  had  returned  a  verdict  of  guilty,  there 
was  no  unseemly  approval,  only  a  long  drawn  sigh  of  relief 
that  the  dreadful  business  was  drawing  to  a  close.  Attending 
the  episode  were  the  usual  hypocrisies  of  society.  It  was  pre 
determined  by  the  people  that  these  Indians  should  die.  For 
myself,  I  think  they  were  guilty  and  ought  fco  have  died.  But, 
I  would  not,  on  that  account,  as  a  narrator  of  facts,  indulge  in 
divers  little  fictions  to  make  the  affair  more  pathetic.  Nor 


17 

was  it  at  all  necessary  for  the^spectator  to  pat  the  judge  on  tKs 
back  for  being  *  so  firm  and  fearless. '  There  was  not  the 
slightest  danger  that  Pratt  would  go  against  the  people  in  this 
matter.  But  he  ruled  as  he  did,  not  so  much  from  any  just  and 
noble  sentiments,  as,  first,  because  there  was  present  no  induce 
ment  for  him  to  do  otherwise,  the  fifty  horses  not  going  to  the 
judge  j  and  secondly  he  well  knew  the  country  would  be  too  hot  to 
hold  him  should  he  do  otherwise." 

In  the  second  edition  of  the  same  volume  of  the  * '  History  of 
Oregon,"  at  the  same  page,  all  this  is  stricken  out,  and  in  its 
place  appears  the  following:  "  The  solemnity  of  religious  ser 
vices  characterized  the  entire  trial,  at  which  between  four  and 
five  hundred  persons  were  present,  who  watched  the  proceed 
ings  with  intense  anxiety.  Counsel  appointed  by  the  judge 
made  vigorous  effort  to  clear  their  clients.  No  one  unfamiliar 
with  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  territory  of  Oregon  at  the 
time  of  which  I  am  writing,  can  realize  the  interest  displayed 
by  the  people  of  the  entire  country  in  this  important  and  never 
to  be  forgotten  trial.  The  bare  thought  that  the  five  wretches, 
that  had  assassinated  Dr.  Whitman,  Mrs.  Whitman,  Mr. 
Saunders,  and  a  large  number  of  immigrants,  might  by  any 
technicality  of  the  law,  be  allowed  to  go  unpunished,  was 
sufficient  to  distract  every  man,  woman  and  child  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  territorial  limits. 

"The  judge  appreciated  in  all  its  seriousness  the  responsi 
bility  of  his  position.  He  seemed  to  realize  that  upon  his 
decision  hung  the  lives  of  thousands  of  the  whites  inhabiting 
the  Willamette  V7alley.  He  proved,  however,  equal  to  the 
emergency.  His  knowledge  of  the  law  was  not  only  thorough, 
but  during  his  early  life,  and  before  having  been  called  to  the 
bench  in  Oregon,  he  had  become  familiar  with  all  the  ques 
tions  involving  territorial  boundaries  and  treaty  stipulations. 
His  position  was  dignified,  firm  and  fearless.  His  charge  was 
full,  logical  and  concise.  His  judicialjaction  in  this  and  many 


18 

other  trials  of  a  criminal  and  civil  nature  in  the  territory 
during  his  judgeship,  made  it  manifest  to  the  great  body  of 
the  early  settlers  that  he  was  not  only  thoroughly  versed  in  all 
the  needed  learning  required  in  his  position,  but  in  addition 
to  the  unswerving  determination  that  the  law.should  be  upheld 
and  enforced,  created  general  confidence  and  reliance  that  he 
would  be  equal  to  his  position  in  all  emergencies." 

Clearly,  one  or  the  other  of  these  statements  is  false. 
Clearly,  Mr.  Bancroft  must  of  a  necessity  be  well  aware  of  the 
iact.  Clearly,  no  true  and  impartial  historian  could  have 
written  both  and  published  them  to  the  world.  Clearly,  any 
one  calling  himself  an  historian,  who  would  be  guilty  of  doing 
so,  and  who  occupies  the  position  of  an  *' Honorary  Member" 
of  this  Society,  should,  by  reason  of  this  fact  alone,  separate 
and  apart  from  any  other  consideration,  ba  dropped  from  its 
roll. 

It  remains  to  be  added,  that  since  the  first  edition  of  this 
volume  was  issued,  it  has  been  surreptitiously  withdrawn  from 
the  library  of  this  Society  and  from  other  public  libraries,  and 
the  new  edition  substituted  therefor.  But  the  crime  remains 
unpunished. 

Fifth. — Because,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  History  of 
Oregon,  in  a  foot  note  originally  prepared  and  printed  for  that 
volume,  at  page  246,  appeared  the  following  malignant  and 
cruel  attack  upon  the  name  of  one,  whose  name  and  memory 
any  true  American  reveres:  "Among  these  soldiers  was  U. 
S.  Grant,  a  man  of  mediocre  abilities  and  somewhat  loose 
habits,  subsequently  elevated  by  accident  to  the  head  of  the 
Army,  and  twice  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States.  Not 
-satisfied  to  rest  upon  the  world's  highest  honors,  he  turned 
and  took  a  downward  course;  asked  again  to  be  President,  was 
refused;  begged  from  poor  Mexico  important  concessions  and 
was  refused,  and  finally  engaged  in  a  business,  which  was 
-disreputably  managed  and  resulted  in  ignominious  failure. 
So  the  end  of  the  man  was  as  bad  as  the  beginning." 


19 

It  was  only  by  the  earnest  intercession  of  those  who  had 
become  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  this  monstrous  wrong^ 
was  about  to  be  perpetrated,  that  Mr.  Bancroft  was  finally 
induced  to  have  this  cruel  slander  stricken  out  and  a  new  page 
printed  in  its  place.  For  this  mean,  cowardly  and  unpatriotic 
attack  also,  the  name  of  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft  deserves  to  be 
stricken  from  the  roll  of  Honorary  Membership  of  this  Society. 
But  still,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  the  utter  want  of  patriotism 
on  the  part  of  this  "  historian  "  would  in  some  similar  way 
find  expression.  And  of  that  other  great  hero  of  the  Civil 
War,  "  Farragut,"  he  would  have  his  fling,  and  that  still 
remains  on  record  in  his  works.  In  Volume  2  of  his  "Popular 
Tribunals,"  at  page  417,  occurs  the  following:  "Farragut's 
mind  seeins  to  have  undergone  a  change.  Evidently,  he  bad 
made  up  his  mind,  as  some  years  later  was  the  case,  with 
regard  to  fighting  for  or  against  his  countrymen,  that  in  case 
of  a  conflict,  right  or  wrong,  he  must  be  found  on  the  side  of 
the  strongest,  which  unquestionably  would  be  that  of  the 
Federal  authorities. " 

Sixth. — Because,  throughout  this  never-ending  series  of 
books  known  as  "Bancroft's  Histories,"  there  runs  such  a 
monstrous  perversion  of  facts,  such  glaring  contradictions, 
such  a  spirit  of  prejudice  and  seemingly  malignant  dislikes 
and  hatreds  of  the  men  of  whom  he  has  written,  and  such  a 
willful  distortion  of  .events  concerning  which  they  claim  to  be 
a  faithful  record,  that  it  would  be  a  public  wrong,  if  not  a 
public  crime  for  this  Society  to  give  countenance  to  them,  by 
permitting  further  association  with  Mr.  Bancroft  in  the  relation 
of  "  Honorary  Membership."  In  illustration  and  proof  of  this 
assertion,  sweeping  as  it  miy  be,  instance  the  following 
summary: 

In  his  Pioneer  Register  and  Index,  Volume  4,  (first  edition) 
page  730,  he  says  of  Dr.  John  Marsb  :  "  He  received  the  first 
immigration  party,  Bartelson's,  at  his  rancho,  and  afforded 
them  much  assistance,  though  he  made  the  new  comers  pay 


20 

well  for  his  services,  and  grievously  offended  many  of  them 
by  his  meanness. "  And  again,  he  says,  in  the  same  volume, 
pages  730-731 :  "  Dr.  Marsh  was  a  peculiar  and  generally  dis 
agreeable  man,  whose  notorious  parsimony  kept  him  con 
stantly  in  trouble  with  most  that  came  in  contact  with  him." 

In  the  second  edition  of  the  same  volume,  these  passages 
were  modified  as  follows,  viz. :  "He  received  the  first  immigra 
tion  party,  Bartelson's,  at  his  rancho,  and  offered  them  much 
assistance.  Dr.  Marsh  was  a  man  of  great  intelligence,  varied 
accomplishments,  and  of  singular  experience  of  life." 

In  his  "  History  of  California,"  (Volume  6,  pages  10  and  11, 
first  edition,)  he  says:  Dr.  John  Marsh,  the  said  doctor  being 
a  kind  of  crank  from  Harvard  College,  who  settled  here  in 
1837,  in  an  adobe  hut,  and  achieved  distinction  as  a  misan 
thrope  and  miner,  sympathetic  with  the  spirit  at  whose  moun 
tain's  feet  (Mt.  Diablo)  he  crouched." 

The  second  edition,  same  volume,  same  pages,  reads  as 
follows:  "  Dr.  John  Marsh,  the  said  doctor  being  a  graduate 
of  Harvard  College,  who  settled  here  in  1837,  building  a  sub 
stantial  stone  house,  where  he  lived  in  the  retirement  he  so 
loved.  He  was  a  highly  individualized  and  intellectual  man, 
whose  letters  to  Secretary  Marcy'  and  other  officials  contain 
valuable  information  about  California." 

In  his  California  Inter  Pocula,  first  edition,  page  342,  he 
says:  "Augustin  Haraszthy,  melter  and  refiner  of  the  San 
Francisco  branch  mint,  on  the  19th  of  September,  was  indicted 
by  the  United  States  grand  jury  upon  the  charge  of  embezzling 
gold  to  the  amount  of  $151,550.  He  was  arrested  and  released 
on  $20,000  bail.  Afterwards,  he  was  tried  and  sentenced  to 
six  years  in  the  State  prison  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  $2000." 

In  the  second  edition  of  the  same  volume,  appears  the 
following  in  place  of  the  foregoing  statement.  "  During  the 
administration  of  President  Pierce,  Augustin  Haraszthy  was 
appointed  assayer,  and  later  melter  and  refiner  of  the  San 


21 

Francisco  branch  mint,  resigning  these  positions  in  1857.  He 
afterwards  built  the  metallurgical  works,  which  have  been  of 
much  service  to  the  community,  and  are  still  in  operation, 
receiving  also  patents  for  improved  processes  in  the  refining  of 
gold." 

In  his  "  Popular  Tribunals,"  (first  edition)  Volume  2,  page 
388,  in  treating  of  the  stabbing  of  Hopkins  by  Judge  Terry, 
during  the  Vigilance  Committee  excitement  of  1856,  the 
following  passage  occurs :  ' '  That  villainous  stab  of  the 
Supreme  Court  Justice  struck  the  death-blow  of  his  party. 
Now  let  Johnson  proclaim  until  he  is  hoarse;  let  Howard  rage 
until  he  bursts!  The  city  in  ashes,  forsooth!  Its  gutters  run 
ning  red  with  the  blood  of  its  citizens!  Better  down  on  your 
knees  most  learned  and  puissant  assassin,  and  pray  your  God, 
if  you  have  one,  that  your  victim  may  live;  for  if  Hopkins 
dies,  you  hang ! " 

In  the  second  edition  of  the  same  volume,  on  the  same  page, 
this  passage  is  stricken  out  and  the  following  substituted  in 
its  place:  "The  open  and  violent  collision  with  the  Vigilant 
forces  was  the  deathblow  to  the  opposing  party,  and  there  is- 
no  question  now  that,  in  the  event  of  Hopkin's  death,  a  Justice 
of  the  Supreme  Court  will  be  executed  by  the  Vigilance  Com 
mittee.  This  presents  nothing  new  in  the  popular  tribunal 
principle,  but  if  it  happens  it  adds  greatly  to  the  cause  of  th& 
Committee. " 

Again,  on  pages  420,  421  and  423,  in  the  first  issue,  occur 
the  following  passages  in  regard  to  Terry.  "  A  Texan  border 
man  with  Texan  border  principles,  he  recognized  fully  pistol 
persuasion,  bowie-knife  justice  and  duello  chivalry.  He  was 
a  man  of  remarkable  ability  in  certain  directions,  with  a  proud, 
impetuous  nature,  and  an  indomitable  will,  as  ready  to  die  for 
a  friend,  or  make  others  die  for  him,  as  to  hunt  an  enemy  to 
death.  *  *  *  It  is  a  character  glaring  with  inconsisten 
cies  and  contradictions,  a  character  which  must  needs  gratify 


22 

all  its  own  unjust,  immoral,  law-breaking  propensities,  but 
denies  under  the  statute  any  such  right  to  others.  *  '  *  * 
His  instincts  seem  to  have  been  atrocious.  In  Texas  he  is 
said  to  have  hunted  the  natives  with  remorseless  cruelty, 
killing  them  as  Nero  killed  flies,  for  the  fun  of  it.  *  *  *" 
Blood  and  chivalry !  Criminality  and  cowardice !  How  many 
attempts  to  kill  unarmed  men  make  a  murderer?  But  the 
catalogue  of  his  crimes,  black  enough  to  consign  him  to  eternal 
infamy,  is  not  half  told. " 

In  the  corrected  later  issue,  these  and  many  other  like 
denunciations  of  Terry  are  stricken  out  and  words  of  pallia 
tion  and  praise  are  substituted  in  their  place. 

Again,  at  page  483  of  the  same  volume,  in  the  first  issue,  he 
said  of  Terry:  "Though  this  unrighteous  and  blood-thirsty 
judge  richly  deserved  hanging,  it  was  beyond  the  line  of  duty 
and  policy  marked  out  for  themselves  by  the  committee  to  so- 
punish  him.  For  had  they  hanged  all  who  really  deserved  it, 
their  hands  would  indeed  have  been  full." 

In  the  corrected  later  issue,  the  following  passage  took  the 
place  of  the  foregoing:  "  If  the  tribunal  erred  it  was  always 
on  the  side  of  leniency,  in  this  matter  following  the  example 
and  the  law,  as  may  well  be  imagined,  with  a  thousand  un 
punished  murderers  in  the  country.  Had  they  hanged  all  wha 
really  deserved  it,  their  hands  would  indeed  have  been  full." 

Again,  at  page  437  of  the  same  volume,  he  says,  in  the  first 
issue  of  that  volume,  in  alluding  to  Terry :  * '  And  now  that 
the  writer  of  this  history  has  placed  the  great  prime  minister 
of  disorderly  law  back  upon  his  bench,  there  once  more  to 
deal  fist,  pistol  and  bowie-knife  justice,  as  in  days  past,  etc."' 

In  the  new  issue  of  the  same  volume,  at  the  same  page,  this 
passage  is  modified  to  read  as  follows:  "And  now  that  the 
writer  of  this  history  has  placed  the  great  prime  minister  of 
disorderly  law  back  upon  his  bench,  there  once  more  to  deal 
high  and  holy  justice,  as  in  days  past,  etc." 


23 

But  the  ease  with  which  Mr.  Bancroft  can  shuffle  out  of 
responsibility,  as  an  historian,  is  best  illustrated  in  another 
passage  from  Yol.  2,  page  368,  where,  in  the  first  issue,  in 
alluding  to  Volney  E.  Howard  and  Terry,  he  said:  "What 
was  Howard's  patriotism?  Self-glorification;  pompous  dis 
play;  blood-and-thunder  greatness.  What  was  Terry's  patri 
otism?  Partisan  jealousy;  malignant  passion;  blood-thirsty 
revenge." 

In  the  new  issue,  of  the  same  volume,  this  passage  was 
modified  by  simply  substituting  other  names  for  those  of 
Howard  and  Terry,  so  that  it  reads  as  follows  now:  "  What 
was  McGo wan' s  patriotism?  Self-glorification;  pompous  dis 
play;  blood-and-thunder  greatness.  What  was  Casey's  patri 
otism?  Partisan  jealousy;  malignant  passion;  blood-thirsty 
revenge." 

As  these  changes  were  made  during  the  lifetime  of  Terry 
and  in  an  apparent  disinclination  to  face  the  consequences  of 
his  first  utterances,  the  sharp  comments  of  a  San  Francisco 
journal,  which  recently  published  these  extracts,  would  seem 
to  be  fully  justified.  It  said,  "  Bancroft  appreciates  the 
difference  in  danger  of  criticising  the  living,  and  defaming  the 
dead." 

Seventh. — Throughout  the  innumerable  books  known  as 
"Bancroft's  Histories,"  there  were  constant  and  sweeping 
assertions  that  all  men  who  ever  wrote  upon  California,  in  an 
historical  and  other  way,  who  have  reached  conclusions  that 
are  contrary  to  those  which  Mr.  Bancroft  maintains,  are 
"  liars,"  as  the  briefest  way  of  disposing  of  their  narratives. 
And  this,  too,  usually  without  the  support  of  evidence  to  sus 
tain  his  arrogant  and  ill-bred  dictum,  taking  it  for  granted 
that  such  dictum  will  be  held  by  tbe  general  public  as  an 
imperial  edict,  not  to  be  gainsaid  or  disputed  corning  from  so 
high  an  authority  as  himself,  as  the  historian  of  historians  of 
the  ag-e  we  live  in.  One  fact  stands  out  with  singular  promi- 


nence  throughout  these  cowardly  assertions,  and  that  is,  that 
every  one  of  the  men  whom  he  thus  denounces  as  "liars, "" 
have  long  since  passed  over  to  the  great  majority,  and  can 
make  no  answer  to  these  cruel  attacks  upon  their  memories. 
It  is  the  dut}^  of  the  Society  of  California  Pioneers  to  vindi 
cate  their  names  and  their  memories  from  these  wanton 
slanders,  in  so  far  as  it  may  be  in  their  power  to  do  so. 

Beginning  with  Chaplain  Fletcher,  who  accompanied  Sir 
Francis  Drake  on  his  famous  voyage  in  1578-79,  and  who 
visited  California  in  July  of  the  latter  year,  Bancroft  says 
(volume  1,  "  History  of  California, "  pages  85-91) :  "It  should 
be  noted  that  no  regular  diary  or  log  of  this  voyage  is  extant 
or  is  known  to  have  been  extant.  Of  the  three  narratives 
which  I  have  cited  one  was  perhaps  written  from  memory  by 
a  companion  of  Drake.  The  others  are  compilations  from 
notes  of  the  chaplain,  Fletcher,  written  under  circumstances  of 
which  we  know  but  little,  by  a  man  not  noted  for  his  veracity  y 
and  from  the  reminiscences  probably  of  others."  Again,  on 
page  91,  he  says:  "Few  have  been  sufficiently  impressed 
with  the  fundamental  truth  that  Chaplain  Fletcher  was  a  liar." 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  at  the  present  writing  a  memorial 
cross  and  monument  are  being  erected  in  our  own  "Golden 
Gate  Park, "  in  commemoration  of  the  first  Christian  religious- 
services  ever  held  on  California  soil,  and  that  such  services 
were  performed  by  this  same  "  Chaplain  Fletcher— Bancroft's 
colossal  liar — there  would  seem  to  be  a  clear  cut  issue  thus 
presented  for  a  public  verdict,  and  that  is  that  such  com 
memorative  tribute  to  Christian  advancement  of  more  than 
three  centuries  ago,  and  to  the  humble  minister  of  God,  who 
was  the  instrument  of  its  performance,  is  either  as  grotesque 
homage  to  a  man  utterly  unworthy  of  being  thus  immortalized, 
or  Bancroft  and  his  books  are  worthy  only  of  the  contempt 
of  his  felllow  men. 

It  would  be  more  than  wearisome  to  follow  Mr.  Bancroft 
in  his  endless  denunciations  of  other  writers  upon  California,. 


25 

whom  lie  stigmatizes  in  a  similar  manner  when  their  views 
and  their  writings  fail  to  be  in  unison  with  his  own  desires 
and  purposes.  Some  few  examples  will  suffice 

L.  W.  Hastings,  who  came  to  California  in  1843,  he  says, 
{See  Yol.  3,  page  778)  "  went  back  in  '44  by  sea,  and  across 
Mexico,  to  publish  a  worthless  book  called  an  '  Emigrant's 
-Guide,"  and  te  attract  settlers  and  prospective  revolutionists." 
He  was  "not  overburdened  with  conscientious  scruples,  but 
never  getting  caught  in  anything  disreputable." 

And  this  of  a  man  who  was  a  member  of  the  Constitu 
tional  Convention  of  1849,  and  against  whom  there  is  noth 
ing  of  public  record  that  would  in  any  degree  justify  this 
•cruel  innuendo. 

At  page  257  of  Yolume  5,  of  his  ' '  History  of  California, " 
alluding  to  the  proclamation  of  Commodore  Stockton,  issued 
on  taking  command  in  California  as  the  successor  of  Com 
modore  Sloat,  he  says :  *  *  The  paper  was  made  up  of  false 
hood,  of  irrelevant  issues,  and  bombastic  ranting  in  about 
equal  parts,"  and  again,  at  page  258,  he  says:  "The  third 
paragraph,  describing  Castro's  outrageous  treatment  of 
Fremont,  is  false  from  beginning  to  end." 

At  page  280,  of  the  same  volume,  speaking  of  language  attri 
buted  to  Commodore  Stockton  in  reply  to  an  embassy,  which 
had  been  sent  to  warn  him  against  entering  Los  Angeles 
with  his  forces,  "  Have  the  bells  ready  to  toll  at  eight  o'clock, 
as  I  shall  be  there  at  that  time."  He  says,  that  this  and 
other  preceding  statements  ' '  may  very  safely  be  designated  as 
falsehoods,  pure  and  simple."  In  a  foot  note  on  the  same 
page,  alluding  to  the  last  quoted  statement  of  Stockton,  he 
says,  "  This  last  lie  was  taken  by  this  writer,  as  it  has  been 
by  others,  from  Colton's  three  years  in  California,  '56,"  thus 
adding  the  name  of  Colton  to  his  list  of  "  liars." 

So  in  a  foot  note  at  page  316  of  the  same  volume,  he 
quotes  from  the  account  of  the  retreat  from  Santa  Barbara  of 
Talbot  and  his  little  command,  who  had  been  left  in  charge 


there,  as  given  by  Captain  Phelps  in  his  narrative  of  events 
of  that  time,  entitled  "  Fore  and  Aft,"  as  follows:  "  Finding 
they  (the  Californians)  would  not  fight,  Talbot  marched  off 
in  a  hollow  square,  followed  by  the  '  caballeros,'  who  reviled 
tne  brave  squad,  but  dare  not  attack  them."  "All  this,"  says 
Bancroft,  "  is  purely  imaginary."  And,  while  he  admits  that 
Phelps'  statement  was  confirmed  by  Talbot' s  men  on  their 
arrival  at  Monterey,  yet  he  does  not  hesitate  to  pillory  them 
all  in  his  catalogue  of  falsifiers,  by  saying,  that  evidently 
Talbot's  men  "indulged  in  the  trapper's  propensity  for  story 
telling." 

At  page  16  of  volume  6,  he  groups  as  falsifiers  a  quartette  of 
American  writers — Revere,  Phelps,  Tuthill  and  Lancey — who, 
in  their  historical  writings  have  dared  to  denounce  Castro,  for 
endeavoring  to  drive  Fremont  out  of  the  country  in  March,  1846, 
and  sets  up  his  own  unsupported  dictum  to  the  contrary,  as 
sufficient  answer  to  them  all. 

At  page  61  of  Volume  6,  of  his  "History  of  California," 
after  giving  an  account  of  the  junta  held  at  the  house  of  Thos. 
O.  Larkin,  at  Monterey  in  March,  1846,  as  related  by  General 
M.  G.  Yallejo,  in  which  Vallejo  spoke  in  favor  of  annexation 
to  the  United  States,  according  to  his  own  written  statement 
of  the  facts — Bancroft  cooly  gives  him  the  lie  in  this  wise : 
"No  such  meeting  was  ever  held,  and  no  such  speeches  were 
ever  made, "  and  he  adds,  "but  in  thus  recording  a  formal 
meeting,  with  deliberate  discussions  of  propositions  to  deliver 
their  country  to  a  foreign  power,  I  am  very  sure  that  General 
Vallejo's  memory  has  been  greatly  aided  by  his  imagination." 

Again,  at  page  151  of  same  volume,  in  treating  of  the  Ide's 
proclamation  at  the  time  of  the  Bear  Flag  episode,  he  says: 
"  This  proclamation  consisted,  first,  of  a  statement  of  the  in 
ducements  under  which  the  revolutionists  had  settled  in 
California — false  from  beginning  to  end;  second,  charges  of 
deception  and  oppression  by  the  authorities— equally  false," 
etc.  *  *'  *'  "  As-a  whole,  in  truthfulness  and  consistency, 


27 

as  in  orthography  and  literary  merit,  it  was  below  the  plane  of 
Castro's  and  Pico's  proclamations." 

Lancey,  author  of  a  manuscript  record  preserved,  as  Ban 
croft  says  in  his  library,  entitled  "  Lancey 's  cruise  of  the 
Dale."  is  let  down  without  being  stigmatized  as  a  falsifier,  but 
still,  according  to  Mr.  Bancroft,  (see  page  704,  Yol.  4,  of  his 
4< History  of  California,")  "in  my  opinion,  excessively  Ameri 
can  in  his  views, "  the  same  idea  being  prevalent  throughout 
Mr.  Bancroft's  works,  that  to  write  from  an  American  stand 
point  is  an  unpardonable  offence. 

Even  the  name  of  Thomas  O.  Larkin — from  whose  documents, 
obtained  from  his  family  and  now  in  Mr.  Bancroft's  library,  he 
has  drawn  so  largely  for  material  for  his  historical  writing — 
does  not  escape  from  being  written  down  as  a  falsifier,  by 
innuendo  sufficiently  direct  to  lead  to  no  other  conclusion  on 
the  part  of  any  intelligent  reader. 

Alluding  to  a  letter  from  Mr.  Buchanan,  then  Secretary  of 
State,  to  Mr.  Larkin,  at  page  597  of  Volume  4,  of  his  "  History 
of  California,"  and  quoting  from  such  letter  as  follows: 
"  Whilst  I  repeat  that  this  government  does  not,  under  exist 
ing  circumstances,  intend  to  interfere  between  Mexico  and 
California,"  Bancroft  says,  "  there  was,  as  my  reader  knows  no 
present  controversy  between  the  two,  though  it  had  suited 
Larkiris  purposes  to  represent  the  contrary. " 

At  page  706,  of  the  same  volume,  he  has  another  fling  at 
this  well  remembered  and  much  respected  deceased  member 
of  this  Society,  where  he  says  he  had  "  the  proverbial  Yankee 
shrewdness  in  trade,  with  no  inconvenient  veneration  for  the 
revenue  laws." 

These  are  but  a  few  of  the  examples  of  reckless,  random 
writing,  which  characterize  the  remarkable  works  known  as 
*  •  Bancroft's  Histories. " 

They  need  not  be  referred  to  in  extenso — further,  as  they  are 
sufficient  testimbny  in  themselves  to  convince  every  intelligent 
and  fair-minded  man,  that  he  who  can  thus  wantonly  reflect 


28 

upon  the  names  and  memories  of  the  dead,  against  whom  no 
word  of  detraction  has  ever  before  been  uttered,  convicts  him 
self  as  a  falsifier,  and  is  therefore  unworthy  of  belief  as  an 
historical  writer,  and,  among  California  Pioneers,  is  unworthy 
of  association  in  the  quality  of  an  " Honorary  Membership.'* 

(Signed)  W.  B.  FAKWELL. 

(For  the  Society  of  California  Pioneers.) 


Your  Committee  caused  a  copy  of  these  charges  to  be  pre 
pared  for  service  upon  Mr.  Bancroft,  together  with  a  written 
notification  from  them,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy,  viz. : 

HALL  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PIONEERS, 
San  Francisco,  December  5,  1893. 

HUBERT  H.  BANCROFT,  ESQ., 

Dear  Sir:  The  undersigned,  a  committee  of  the  Society  of 
California  Pioneers,  appointed  to  investigate  and  report  upon 
certain  charges  of  misconduct  against  you  as  an  Honorary 
Member  of  this  Society,  hereby  notify  you  that  Tuesday 
evening,  December  12,  1893,  at  7:30  p.  M.,  afc  the  Committee 
room  of  Pioneer  Hall,  has  been  fixed  as  the  time  and  place 
for  the  hearing  of  said  charges;  and  that  the  type-written 
document  of  pages  one  to  twenty-four,  both  inclusive  of  this 
date,  signed  by  Willard  B.  Farwell,  Esq.,  as  the  prosecutor  on 
behalf  of  the  Society,  is  a  true  copy  of  the  charges  against  you 
for  investigation;  and  that  you  are  respectfully  invited  to 
attend  at  said  time  and  place  (with  counsel  if  you  please)  for 
the  purpose  of  said  investigation. 

(Signed)  WM.  SIMPSON, 

E.  THOMPSON, 
A.  S.  HALT,, 

S.     W.    HOLLADAY. 

This  notification,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  charges,  was, 
at  the  request  of  the  Committee,  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 


29 

Marshal  of  the  Society,  by  the  Secretary,  for  service  upon  Mr. 
Bancroft,  who  made  the  following  return  upon  the  same. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  December  6th,  1893. 

I  hereby  certify  that  this  is  a  true  copy  of  a  paper  which 
was  enclosed  in  a  sealed  envelope,  directed  to  Mr.  Hubert  H. 
Bancroft. 

JOHN  F.  PINKHAM, 
Marshal  Society  of  California  Pioneers. 

In  accordance  with  this  notification,  your  Committee  met  on 
the  12th  day  of  December,  1893,  for  the  purpose  therein  stated. 
Mr.  Bancroft  not  appearing  before  them,  either  in  person  or 
by  representative,  your  committee  requested  Mr.  Holladay  to 
ascertain  Bancroft's  post  office  address  and  to  forward  to  him 
by  registered  letter  another  copy  of  the  charges,  together  with 
a  further  notification,  fixing  the  26th  day  of  December  upon 
which  the  Committee  would  again  meet,  and  give  him  another 
opportunity  to  be  heard,  if  he  desired  to  do  so.  Your  Com 
mittee  met  again,  on  the  date  and  at  the  hour  mentioned  in 
said  last  named  notification,  but  Mr.  Bancroft  not  appearing, 
and  no  response  having  been  received  from  him,  adjourned 
until  the  9th  day  of  January,  1894.  Mr.  Bancroft  not  then 
appearing  and  no  response  having  been  received  from  him, 
your  Committee  adjourned  until  the  16th  of  January,  1894,  at 
which  time  Mr.  Bancroft  still  having  failed  to  appear,  and 
making  no  response,  your  Committee  deemed  it  unnecessary 
to  delay  the  investigation  further  and,  therefore,  proceeded  to 
hear  and  consider  the  charges,  which  had  been  formulated  by 
Mr.  Farwell  and  so  served  upon  Mr.  Bancroft. 

This  indictment — if  we  may  so  term  it — is  divided  into  seven 
counts,  each  one  of  which  is  made  up  of  a  group  of  specific 
charges,  each  of  which  charges  your  Committee  proceeded  to 
carefully  and  patiently  investigate  by  reference  to,  and  com 
parison  with,  the  several  volumes  of  " Bancroft's  Histories," 
at  the  several  pages  therein  specifically  referred  to.  As  the 


30 

result  of  such  investigation  and  comparison,  your  Committee 
£nd  as  follows: 

First — The  charges,  set  forth  in  the  first  count  of  said 
"indictment,"  touching  Mr.  Bancroft's  treatment  of  the  names 
of  Fremont,  Stockton,  Sutler  and  the  men  of  the  "Bear  Flag 
Party,"  and  which  are  covered  by  the  preamble  and  resolutions 
Introduced  by  Mr.  Farwell  and  adopted  by  the  Society,  as 
Jiereinbefore  set  forth,  your  Committee  find,  are  fully  sustained. 

Second — The  charges,  grouped  in  the  second  count  of  the 
indictment,  and  which  consist  of  instances  of  unjust  and  cruel 
attacks  upon  the  names  and  memories  of  early  Pioneers,  who 
were  among  the  originators  and  early  members  of  this  Society, 
and  none  of  whom  are  now  living,  your  Committee  also  find, 
fully  sustained. 

Third — The  charges,  of  misrepresentation  of  the  facts  of 
history  and  of  maligning  the  memories  of  those  Americans  and 
others  who  were  unjustly  arrested  and  expatriated  to  Mexico 
in  1840,  under  circumstances  of  extreme  cruelty  and  injustice, 
and  of  abuse  and  vilification  of  T.  J.  Farnham  who  was  an  eye 
witness  of  the  affair,  and  who  wrote  an  account  of  the  same  in 
his  book,  (published  in  1852)  entitled  "Life,  Adventures  and 
Travels  in  California, "your  Committee  find  are  fully  sustained, 
and  comprise  in  themselves  an  act  unworthy  of  any  fair-minded 
historian,  and  abhorrent  to  every  unprejudiced  and  patriotic 
American  citizen. 

Fourth — The  extraordinary  charge,  of  having  in  his.  first 
edition  of  Volume  2,  of  the  "History  of  Oregon, "  published 
an  account  of  a  trial  of  certain  Cayuse  Indian  murderers,  held 
many  years  ago  before  a  judge  who  was  then,  and  up  to  the 
time  of  his  death  remained  a  member  in  good  standing  of  this 
Society,  in  which  the  said  judge  was  made  the  subject  of 
attack  in  terms,  which,  if  they  had  been  true,  would  have  con 
signed  his  name  and  memory  to  lasting  infamy;  and  of  striking 
all  this  out  and  publishing  in  the  second  edition  of  the  same 


31 

volume,  fin  exactly  opposite  statement  of  eulogy  and  praise,  as 
shown  in  the  fourth  count  of  said  indictment,  your  Committee 
not  only  find  fully  sustained,  but  regard  it  as  a  shameful  act, 
sufficient  in  itself  to  render  the  works  of  any  so-called  "  histo 
rian  "  unworthy  of  credence. 

Fifth — The  apparently  malignant,  .and  certainly  cruel  and 
unjust,  attack  upon  the  name  and  memory  of  General  Grant, 
who,  while  living,  was  an  honored,  as  well  as  an  "Honorary 
Member  "  of  this  Society,  as  set  forlh  in  the  fifth  count  of  this 
indictment,  jrour  Committee  find  fully  sustained,  and  cannot 
refrain  from  expressing  the  opinion,  that  to  retain  the  name  of 
General  Grant  in  its  list  of  "Honorary  Members, "  together 
with  that  of  his  maligner,  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft,  would  be 
an  act  of  inconsistency  unworthy  of  the  name  and  fame  of  the 
"  Society  of  California  Pioneers." 

Sixth — The  group  of  charges  comprised  in  the  sixth  count  of 
this  indictment,  wherein  contradictory  statements,  in  regard 
to  early  Pioneers,  appear  in  the  different  editions  of  the  same 
volumes,  and  the  pusillanimous  treatment  of  the  late  Judge 
Terry's  conflict  with  the  "Vigilance  Committee  "  of  1856,  as 
related  and  exposed,  we  find  fully  sustained. 

Seventh — The  closing,  or  seventh  count  of  this  already  more 
than  severe  indictment,  wherein  it  is  shown  that  Mr.  Bancroft's 
methods  of  writing  history  are,  to  assert  certain  conclusions  of 
his  own,  in  regard  to  the  men  and  events  of  the  period  of 
which  he  has  written  and  to  denounce  all  who  differ  with  him 
as  "liars,"  no  matter  what  part  they  may  have  played  in  these 
events,  how  much  better  may  have  been  their  opportunities  of 
knowing  the  true  facts  of  history,  how  upright  may  hare  been 
their  lives,  or  how  unsullied  their  reputations  while  living,  we 
find  fully  sustained. 

Finally,  the  case,  as  presented  against  Mr.  Bancroft,  as  a 
whole,  constitutes,  in  the  opiuion  of  your  Special  Committee, 
valid  reasons  why  the  name  of  Hubert  Howe  Bancroft  should 


32 

no  longer  be  permitted  to  remain  upon  the  roll  of  this  Society 
as  an  "Honorary  Member."  The  indifference,  not  to  say  the 
contempt,  with  which  he  has  treated  the  Society,  in  not 
appearing  before  your  Committee  or  making  any  reply  to  its 
communications,  renders  it  unnecessary  for  us  to  give  the 
matter  any  further  consideration,  than  to  report  back  the  reso 
lution  and  recommend  its  adoption. 

We  may  be  permitted  to  add,  that,  in  vindication  of  the 
truth  of  early  California  history,  and  of  the  real  facts  relating 
to  the  conquest  and  acquisition  of  the  country  by  the  United 
States,  as  well  as  in  vindication  of  the  memories  of  the  many 
early  Pioneers  who  have  been  maligned  and  misrepresented  in 
these  so-called  "  Bancroft's  Histories,"  your  Committee  recom 
mend  that  the  "  Board  of  Directors"  be  requested  to  have  all 
the  proceedings  heretofore  had,  as  well  as  those  which  may  be 
had,  upon  the  subject  matter  here  under  consideration,  com 
piled  and  printed  in  proper  form  for  general  distribution 
among  the  Public  Libraries  of  the  United  States  and  elsewhere, 
as  may  be  deemed  desirable  and  proper. 

(Signed)  WILLIAM  SIMPSON, 

B.  THOMPSON,         f     ^ 

__    TT  V    Committee. 

S.  W.  HOLLADAY, 

A.  S.  HALL. 


The  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Dr.  Win.  Simpson  in 
regard  to  the  Bear  Flag  Revolt  : 

Resolved,  That  since  Bancroft  in  his  "  History  of  California," 
while  dealing  with  the  Bear  Flag  Eevolt,  has  misrepresented 
the  purposes  and  aims  of  that  uprising,  mistaken  the  condi 
tions  which  brought  it  about,  and  has  made  it  the  opportunity 
of  many  severe  attacks  upon  pioneer  characters,  we  therefore 
offer  the  following  brief  review  of  that  episode,  in  the  interest 
of  truth,  and  in  justice  to  the  memories  of  the  men  engaged 
in  it. 


It  will  be  found  that  at  the  time  of  this  event,  there  were 
about  1000  Americans  (in  a  population,  including  Indians,  of 
16,000)  residing  in  California,  every  one  of  whom  had  enjoyed 
the  blessings  and  advantages  of  our  system  of  government, 
and  who  hoped  and  expected  at  some  future  time  to  see  our 
flag  waving  over  the  territory  upon  which  their  new  homes 
were  built.  This  wish  was  intensified  by  the  unhappy  condi 
tion  of  things  surrrounding  them,  and  which  were  gradually 
growing  worse,  as  their  numbers  increased,  by  the  aroused 
jealousy  and  suspicion  of  the  Mexican  and  California  officials. 
It  was  not  only  the  weakness  and  instability  of  the  government 
to  which  they  were  obliged  to  submit,  or  the  insecurity  of 
property,  and  discouragements  to  industry  which  the  Mexican 
system  imposed,  that  caused  ihe  few  Americans  living  here  at 
that  time  to  wish  ardently  for  a  change.  A  greater  and  far 
more  serious  inteiruption  in  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life  was 
impending,  and  growing  more  threatening  from  day  to  day. 
Texas  had  recently  been  annexed  against  the  remonstrance  of 
Mexico.  The  mission  of  Mr.  Slidel  to  that  country  had  been 
without  a  peaceful  result,  and  had  only  produced  new  animos 
ity.  A  large  American  iorce  had  been  ordered  near  the  Mexican 
border,  and  by  these  signs,  as  well  as  others,  the  coming  war 
was  easily  predicted.  It  required  no  more  than  ordinary 
intelligence  to  foresee,  in  the  expected  hostilities,  the  loss  of 
California  to  Mexico,  and  its  probable  conquest  by  either  the 
United  States  or  England.  A  peaceful  cession  to  the  latter 
country  had  been  discussed  by  the  California  authorities,  and 
was  growing  more  popular  among  the  native  Californians  as 
the  rumors  of  war  increased,  and  as  their  animosities  against 
the  Americans  became  excited  by  the  critical  condition  of 
their  mother  country.  While  it  remains  to  this  day  a  matter 
of  conjecture  how  far  England  was  willing  to  proceed  in 
securing  to  herself  this  territory,  its  peaceful  surrender  to  her 
by  the  California  authorities  was  not  likely  to  be  refused,  and 
the  whole  American  colony  was  in  suspense  and  excitement  in 
dread  of  such  an  occurrence.  Their  fortunes  were  not  only 


34 

dangerously  involved  in  the  outcome,  but,  during  the  period 
of  expected  hostilities  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico, 
the}7  could  easily  anticipate  the  great  danger  and  distress 
awaiting  them.  American  residents  within  the  seaports  and 
vicinities  were  assured  of  protection  by  their  country's  war 
ships,  of  which  a  number  were  already  on  the  coast,  but  those 
of  the  interior  had  no  other  treatment  to  expect,  in  the  event 
of  war,  than  the  well  known  Mexican  methods  of  retaliation 
and  punishment,  and  among  these  one  quite  likely  to .  be 
invoked,  and  actually  attempted  later  on,  was  the  setting  upon 
them  of  the  Indians,  who  had  not  yet  lost  their  sense  of 
obedience  to  the  California  officials,  so  lately  holding  them  in 
authority  by  the  influence  of  the  Missions.  The  necessity  of 
an  organization  among  the  Americans  living  in  the  interior 
was  apparent,  and  while  [considering]  it  an  event  occurred, 
which  greatly  aggravated  the  situation,  and  led  to  an  imme 
diate  coming  together  of  a  number  of  settlers,  not  for  defense 
only,  but  with  the  further  purpose  of  assisting  to  secure  the 
territory  to  the  United  States.  The  event  spoken  of  was  the 
accidental  arrival  within  the  borders  of  California,  of  Fremont 
with  his  band  of  explorers.  Fremont's  difficulty  with  Castro, 
the  details  of  which  are  too  well  known  to  require  mention 
here,  aroused  that  Mexican  military  commander  to  immediately 
issue  proclamations  of  a  warlike  character,  and  to  begin  the 
organization  of  a  military  force. 

There  were  a  number  of  threatening  rumors  afloat  besides, 
which,  even  admitting  the  extravagance  of  some  of  them,  we 
know  to  have  been  generally  believed.  Bancroft  himself 
furnishes  evidence  of  this  in  the  publication  of  the  testimony, 
in  a  foot  note,  of  no  less  than  seventeen  persons  living  at  the 
time.  These  witnesses,  among  whom  are  a  committee  of  citi 
zens,  in  a  report  published  in  1847 — W.  B.  Ide,  H.  L.  Ford, 
Wm.  Hargrave,  Benj.  Dowell,  Marshal,  Semple,  Hensley, 
Owens,  Loker,  Sutter  and  Fremont — all  of  whom  agreed  and 
believed  that  the  Mexican  government  had  determined  upon 


35 

the  expulsion  of  the  Americans  from  the  country,  and  that 
Castro  was  inciting  the  Indians  against  them,  and  threatening 
to  burn  their  crops,  and  that  they  would  have  to  leave  the 
country  or  fight  for  their  homes.  Although  this  strong  array 
of  evidence  WHS  set  forth  by  Bancroft  for  the  purpose  of  dis- 
proval,  and,  as  we  believe,  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  bitter 
attack  upon  a  famous  Pioneer,  its  impeachment,  under  his 
examination,  can  have  no  effect  whatever  to  impugn  the 
motives  of  the  settlers  in  organizing  the  "  Bear  Flag  Revolt, " 
since  it  cannot  be  denied  they  believed  the  rumors  and  were 
sincerely  acting  under  the  impressions  they  created. 

The  Bear  insurrection  was  essentially  a  movement  of  defense, 
The  grand  possibilities  of  the  country  under  a  better  adminis 
tration,  which  time  has  so  fully  verified,  were  apparent  to  its 
movers,  and  furnished  an  additional  motive  to  assist,  either  by 
direct  or  remote  methods,  to  bring  the  territory  under  the 
dominion  of  the  United  States.  The  threatened  misfortune  of 
being  placed  under  English,  instead  of  Americen  rule,  had  its 
effect  also  to  promote  and  excuse  that  severity  and  promptness 
of  action,  so  necessary  to  success  in  such  an  undertaking. 

In  the  condemnation  of  the  "  Bear  Flag  Revolt,"  Bancroft 
lays  great  stress  on  what  he  terms  its  embarassment  to  a  peace 
ful  conquest  of  the  country.  Some  later  events  ought  to  have 
proved  to  his  mind  that  a  ready  submission,  by  the  mere 
raising  of  American  flags  in  the  seaports,  was  not  likely  to 
have  taken  place.  Whoever  has  reckoned  on  such  a  result, 
has  made  too  low  an  estimate  of  the  patriotism  and  bravery  of 
the  people  with  whom  we  had  to  deal.  It  is  reasonable  to 
conclude  that  their  early  submission  was  as  much  due  to 
Fremont's  ever-ready  opposing  force  at  hand,  interrupting  the 
progress  of  their  concentration  and  unity  of  action,  as  it  was 
to  any  measured  hopelessness  of  their  situation.  We  have  a 
taste  of  what  may  have  occurred,  in  the  bloody  engagements 
of  San  Pasquale,  Natividad  and  elsewhere.  An  invitation  of 
departure  to  the  Americans  must  have  come  in  due  time  under 


36 

the  usages  of  war,  and  by  an  early  successful  skirmish  or  two, 
unopposed  by  a  thoroughly  organized  American  force,  arousing 
thus  the  hopes  of  the  natives,  and  stimulating  their  patriotism 
to  the  bitter  extremity  perhaps  of  enlisting  the  Indians  in 
their  behalf;  the  comparatively  small  amount  of  bloodshed,  of 
which  Bancroft  makes  such  virtuous  complaint,  would  have 
been  but  as  a  drop  in  the  bucket  compared  with  that  likely  to 
have  been  spilt. 

The  intermediary  stage  of  independence  proposed  by  the 
"  Bear  Revolt  "  was  a  forced  extremity,  owing  to  the  position, 
and  suggested  by  the  then  recent  example  of  Texas.  At  the 
time  of  its  organization,  there  was  no  way  at  hand  to  place  it 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  and  no  military  offi 
cer  within  a  thousand  miles  to  muster  it  into  service.  Its 
proclamation  of  independence  cuts  but  a  small  figure  in  its 
history,  because  of  the  willing  abandonment  of  its  flag,  and 
the  substitution  of  the  "Stars  and  Stripes"  within  less  than 
a  month  of  its  independent  organization.  Its  ready  mergence 
into  the  California  Battalion,  under  the  flag  of  the  United 
States,  and  the  heartfelt  and  genuine  enthusiasm  expressed  by 
its  members  on  the  raising  of  the  American  flags  at  San 
Francisco,  Monterey,  Los  Angeles  and  elsewhere,  leaves  no 
doubt  of  their  loyalty  and  patriotism.  Their  individual 
careers,  down  to  the  present  time,  exhibit  more  than  an 
average  of  usefulness  and  prominence  in  society. 

We  are  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  Bancroft  has  neither 
fairly  nor  truthfully  set  forth  the  motives  and  character  of  the 
"  Bear  Flag  Revolt,"  in  his  "  History  of  California,"  and  his 
allusion  to  it  as  the  "  criminal  outbreak  of  vagabond  settlers  " 
is  flagrantly  and  maliciously  untrue. 

(Signed)  WILLIAM  SIMPSON. 


37 

PIONEER  HALL,  San  Francisco. 

At  the  regular  monthly  meeting  of  the  members  of  "The 
Society  of  California  Pioneers,"  held  at  Pioneer  Hall  on 
Monday,  February  5th,  1894,— -there  being  eighty  members 
present  per  register — the  Special  Committee  appointed  to 
investigate  the  charges  made  by  Dr.  Washington  Ayer  against 
Hubert  Howe  Bancroft,  submitted  their  final  report,  which 
was  read  by  the  Secretary;  and  also  the  resolution  offered  by 
Dr.  Win.  Simpson,  in  relation  to  the  "Bear  Flag  Party." 

The  following  action  was  then  taken  by  the  Society : 

Dr.  Wm.  Simpson  moved  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee.  On  being  duly  seconded  the  question  was  called, 
and  on  being  put  to  a  vote  the  Chair  declared  it  carried 
unanimously,  and  the  report  of  the  Committee  adopted. 

W.  B.  Farwell  moved  that  the  resolution  offered  by  Dr. 
Washington  Ayer,  proposing  that  the  name  of  Hubert  Howe 
Bancroft  be  stricken  from  the  roll  of  Honorary  Membership  in 
this  Society,  be  formally  adopted.  On  being  duly  seconded, 
the  question  was  called,  and  on  being  put  to  a  vote  the  Chair 
declared  it  carried  unanimously,  and  that  Hubert  Howe  Ban 
croft  was  no  longer  an  Honorary  Member  of  this  "The 
Society  of  California  Pioneers.' ' 

Dr.  Wm.  Simpson,  after  the  reading  of  his  resolution,  in 
relation  to  the  "  Bear  Flag  Party,"  moved  its  adoption.  On 
being  duly  seconded  the  Chair  declared  it  carried  unanimously. 

(Signed)  C.  V.  S    GIBBS, 

President. 

[SEAL.]  JOHN  I.  SPEAR, 

Secretary. 


